SOF and the GPP- Which system works best?

[JLE]

Quick intro and bona fides before this starts- some of you know me from here, but for those that don't, I am a PJ working overseas at an STS. I have an extreme interest in physiology, biology, and exercise. Not just because of the job, because it genuinely interests me and I like learning. I am a Crossfit Level 1 coach, and have been certified for about 3 years, and have followed Crossfit in several forms for more than 5 years now. I qualified for the Europe Regional this year in the Crossfit Games, but was unable to compete in Sweden because of a work trip. I am also a Krav Maga hand to hand instructor along with a bunch of other stuff- I only say this to make the point that I coach many different types of athletes, from special operators to "regular AF" cops to housewives, and that I myself still take an active approach to training and competing.

All this being said, I ALWAYS get questions, both from the board here and in "real life" about which GPP (an all inclusive label given to any General Physical Preparedness program) will be most beneficial to prepare someone for some type of selection. At this point, really, they are endless. P90X, Crossfit, Crossfit Endurance, Crossfit Football, Gym Jones, SEALFit, RangerFit, Rescue Athlete, Mountain Athlete, et al. Commonalities abound- a want or end state desire to enhance "work capacity" and a refusal to "specialize" and be ready for the "unknown and unknowable", forcing your bodies energy pathways to make adaptions beneficial to your line of work. I put these phrases in quotes simply because they are direct quotes and those quotes didn't come from me. I obviously get the most questions about Pararescue Indoc. The INEVITABLE progression of my normal questioning goes something like this: "Hey, I wanna go to (enter selection course here) and I really need to step my game up. I weigh 150 lbs at 5'10" and I want to be able to smoke (selection). I have been doing (enter GPP here) and I have been seeing results- but do I need to run more? When should I lift weights? What should my nutrition be like?"

Seeing as there has to be some sort of limit to how much I can write here, I am not going to TOUCH the nutrition issue. I will address my opinion on training programs and how I feel one can best prepare for a lifetime of basically thrashing yourself for the greater good. All I will say is this- eat good. Eat enough protein to build muscle, enough carbs to fuel your workouts and life, and enough fat to recover. Moving on.

Listen, guys- every selection that I know of is a kick in the groin. I haven't ever heard of anyone talking crap about BUDs, Indoc, the Q, Recon, Rescue Swimmer, SWAT, whatever. Life sucks. That being said, they are also ALL crawl-walk-run type of progressions. Going into your selection on Day 1 and smoking that initial PT test means- nothing! Absolutely nothing. Smoking that halfway eval? Guess what that means? NOTHING! The only physical eval that matters is the final. There are no "mystical" standards. Sooooo- that's knowable, right? There isn't a hopper at your respective qualification course giving you a randomized set of exercises, is there? At my final eval, we did pullups, pushups, situps, a 6 mile timed run, a 3K swim, and a lot of water confidence drills and evals. Guess what? The teams going into their final eval at the PJ Schoolhouse are going to do just what I did. These standards were posted in advance. Not necessarily "unknown". And you know who did the best on this final eval? The stronger guys. The guys that were naturally bigger and stronger. Where did the sprint triathlon/marathon runner/swimmer guys finish? They were destroyed from putting their underweight frame through 3 months of hell prior to their eval.

Here is my opinion on fitness for the SOF environment. Get stronger. Period. Stronger people are harder to kill, and be rational. While you may insist that you feel "better prepared for whatever life or the mission throws at you" because you have a 2:30 Fran time- you may find yourself sorely mistaken at an inopportune time. In the SOF world, you may not know exactly what the event is- but you can make a pretty damn good guess. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that I will have to lift something repeatedly, carry something, and put out at 100% in short spurts for an unknown amount of time. Oh, and that "something" I mentioned? It's always heavy. And you always have to move it above your shoulders. Trust me on this one.

I am not against running or swimming. Running is a standard in every branch and service in the world, and it's an adequate measure of cardiorespiratory fitness. If running is your passion, do it. I will say this though- I would prefer to see you squat 350 and have a 21:00 three mile than an 18:00 three mile and a 250 squat, every day of the week. Know why? I don't give a crap how fast you can run 3 miles if you can't pick me up (I weigh 275lbs in my kit) and get me 300 meters out of harms way. We are not currently running 5K's for the nation's freedom, gents. What we ARE doing, however, is putting on 1/4 of our bodyweight in gear and sprinting for short amounts of time, and moving heavy pieces of equipment/men, and we are expected to do this till the job is done. Does any GPP do this better than any other? Completely arguable. The more tweaks come out with the programs, the more possible it is, and I do not even pretend to know every program or have the time to study every effect.

Bottom line- I am a huge advocate of 1-gaining useful weight, a la Bill Star, Mark Rippetoe, Dr. Kilgore, Mark Burgener, et al. Explosive, multi joint, olympic style lifts performed violently and in a repeated fashion, coupled with a diet that promotes growth and recovery. 2- Forcing yourself past your pain and mental barriers on a regular basis SAFELY. 3- Making a known and measured attempt to increase your body mass as a whole. 4- Doing some sort of preventative maintenance/"pre-hab" or some sort of action to prevent disability at the 18 year mark, like every special operator EVER. Being a 150lb sprint triathlon maniac is much less useful than a 200lb boxer, gents. Think who you want on your team- the little guy that says he can outrun you, or the moderately big dude that tells you he can flip a humvee with his hands. We aren't talking about who looks better at the bar- we are talking about building warriors. I have enough personal experience to say this with confidence- the best way to get through selection and be a useful operator on the other side is to make a conscious effort to increase your muscle mass and strength exponentially, in all aspects. Regardless of the program.

In conclusion, let me answer the question- "What training program should I use to make it through selection?" Answer- Get stronger. Do multi-joint olympic lifts violently with as little rest in between sets as possible. Keep a log and try to make the numbers you did last time smaller than the numbers you do this time, and do that all the time. Couple this program with running or swimming as necessary, simply for the fact that running is the test, and omitting running would simply be stupid. The same can be said for cals- if you know you get tested on pushup max, then do pushup max sets. But if you're lifting chest correctly- i.e. heavy ass bench, then your pushup max is going to magically improve. Do something that you can stick to in austere environments, that you can learn on your own or from a friend you work with, and that you can make a lifestyle and that excites you.

**READ THIS BEFORE POSTING A REPLY**

I know that this specific topic is extremely debatable, and I have no issue with discourse. But to keep this thread on track, focus on the intent- What is the best way to take an untrained athlete and get him through a special operations/ LEO selection course?

Here is a good article from Starting Strength on conditioning and GPP (this one talks about Crossfit specifically- but remember Crossfit is a brand name. )

http://startingstrength.com/articles/appropriate_conditioning_sheaffer.pdf

Cheers.

[Ronin8002]

Can't personally speak to preparing for a SOF selection, but I thought I might offer an additional reference for whatever it's worth: "Military Fitness: A Manual of Special Physical Training" by Nathanael Morrison.

I don't have access to a copy at the moment but I recall that he builds a good case for:

-focusing on strengthening the posterior chain
-utilizing kettlebells, sandbags, and a ruck as one's equipment
-running in boots

Among a number of other things.

To my recollection he eschews some of the more technical, olympic lifts; both for the amount of equipment required and that he feels time is better spent on movements that are a bit more directly transferred to the intended application of that conditioning.

Given his background (which I am sure you are aware of), his approach seems credible and sensible for what I believe is his target audience. Seemed to be basically in line with what you posted, though perhaps it departs a bit from the starting strength philosophy's focus on raw strength in typical weightlifting movements.

Any thoughts on his book JLE?

[JLE]

Yes, I am most certainly aware of Nate Morrison.

I agree with Morrison, mostly. He does eschew a lot of the more technical movements- like the snatch and clean/jerk, but I have always found his reasoning for doing so to be slightly flawed. I felt reading his book as if he was saying "Yea, you can teach guys these lifts, but it's really not worth your time, because you cant do those lifts in a deployed environment. Teaching an athlete- military or not- how to deadlift, squat, clean, snatch, and press are the fundamental physiological base to allow that athlete to perform "odd object" lifts- like morrisons kettlebells, sandbags, ruck- without injury. However, I see where he is coming from with saying "you'll consistently have this gear with you at a minimum, while you might not always have a barbell and weights.

His approach is credible. I always defer to the old adage "Listen, if it works for you, then it works for you." Just because I may not agree with it, doesn't mean it doesn't work for some people.

The bottom line is this. In my opinion, and in the athletes I coach or give advice to, the first thing I tell EVERY SINGLE PERSON is "get stronger". Strength is the building block for all of your body's physiologic adaptations, and the most stable. I am of the opinion that you can always find some "cardio"- you can always kick it up a notch and run that extra mile or go just a bit faster if you need to. But you simply cant find strength if you just don't have it. If your muscles are well trained, you can push past your lungs. If your lungs are great, they cant give muscle to your legs.

[bm2bob]

Can't say I disagree with you. Can't say I agree 100% with the article though.

Strength coaches think strength is most important (Greyskull is that, so is Rip)
Endurance coaches think endurance is most important.

The one that'll break you is the one you're not ready for, no matter which "program" you do. The idea IMO is to narrow that window.

I like CF, but realistically, my goal is to enjoy my workouts.

[Ronin8002]

<snip> but I have always found his reasoning for doing so to be slightly flawed. I felt reading his book as if he was saying "Yea, you can teach guys these lifts, but it's really not worth your time, because you cant do those lifts in a deployed environment. Teaching an athlete- military or not- how to deadlift, squat, clean, snatch, and press are the fundamental physiological base to allow that athlete to perform "odd object" lifts- like morrisons kettlebells, sandbags, ruck- without injury. However, I see where he is coming from with saying "you'll consistently have this gear with you at a minimum, while you might not always have a barbell and weights. <snip>

I had forgotten some of the details of his reasoning but you are right. Good post and thanks for clarifying.

[SOTB]

All this being said, I ALWAYS get questions, both from the board here and in "real life"....I get the impression from reading your post that you seem less interested about discussing what is a better GPP for SOF than telling readers what is a better GPP for SOF. I get this from the style of your post, the length of it, and your insinuation that you are the go-to guy for the answers on the topic. I do have a question for you, you state that you ALWAYS get questions, and you reference this board -- yet you've only been a member here for less than a year. Did you have a different username? Because if not, then once again, I believe you have other motives for your post. IE, do you have a business goal? Is this a publicity venture (your post)?Going into your selection on Day 1 and smoking that initial PT test means- nothing!Correct. Spot on. The rest of the follow on to this post is not correct, though. At least not IMO. Why? Because one of the beauties of selection events is that soon enough -- EVERYONE will be smoked. And then, only THEN, does selection actually begin. I've found, from participating in and running selection events, that judging physical strength was rarely the goal of the event, nor was it remotely associated with why the person passed (or failed).Here is my opinion on fitness for the SOF environment. Get stronger.No serious argument against this, but GPP isn't focused on just being strong on lifting. It is being strong in your lungs. And being strong in your heart. And to a certain extent, being strong in the mind -- not as easy to train the mind with protein shakes, but still an important task.

I will state there there are some flaws (IMO) with your focus. You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of someone who rides a HUMVEE or chopper, and not someone who walks long distances to get to the problem (or has to walk long distance to leave the problem). WHich is fine. Why not train for your mission? Cool.

But your post (besides coming off as THE answer) appears to presume that all SOF is the same. Which would be wrong. Not everyone's mission revolves around 300m sprints. So when you are packing on all of those badass inches on your chest and arms -- are you considering that in addition to the ruck you have to haul around, you have to haul around all that muscle? But of course you are, I apologize for the silliness of my question.

You do mention that you see at least some of the issues with regards to what equipment or work you can do while deployed. OK, cool. Please give me your thoughts on the rollercoastering of building and dropping musclemass while working missions. You know, the SOF missions where you are walking to a far away location, hanging out there for a week or more, and then walking your ass back out. Only to grab a couple of days' rest to head back out for long walk redeux.We are not currently running 5K's for the nation's freedom, gents. What we ARE doing, however, is putting on 1/4 of our bodyweight in gear and sprinting for short amounts of time, and moving heavy pieces of equipment/men, and we are expected to do this till the job is done.I think there is some truth to this. Especially for the previous amount of activity in Iraq, although IMO this isn't as true for Astan. Guys in Iraq were rolling up on objs, guys in Astan are lots of times having to walk to objs. The first mission profile lends to your thinking. The second mission profile means you have to drag that big-assed body (yours, not someone over your shoulder -- which while very possible, I'm not even mentioning yet) up that hill -- which is already at 9k+' elevation and climbing. No issues with lungs/heart here that you find important? It's all squats and benches that will take you up the hill, and the next hill, and the next? Forcing yourself past your pain and mental barriers on a regular basis SAFELY.Right on. Good info. I have enough personal experience to say this with confidence- the best way to get through selection and be a useful operator on the other side is to make a conscious effort to increase your muscle mass and strength exponentially, in all aspects. Regardless of the program.Well, we disagree. I've exactly the opposite experience. And this is from a guy who still runs selection programs today. And who still sees big guys drop out at almost the beginning of the event.

I will say this. If I could be a big-assed dude AND move to the tune that the little guys seem to constantly be able to do -- I would gladly take your approach. But my experience just doesn't show you to be right.In conclusion, let me answer the question- "What training program should I use to make it through selection?"A well-rounded program, that focuses on your being able to be strong -- while allowing you to go long distances. Plus a program that doesn't hurt you before you even get to selection (as you stated, do it SAFELY). Getting stronger is only PART of the equation -- and IMO -- not nearly the most important.....to keep this thread on track, focus on the intent- What is the best way to take an untrained athlete and get him through a special operations/ LEO selection course?I don't proclaim to know the best program -- I wish I did. I do like CF'ish programs for maintenance -- if for no other reason than it seems to be less injury-prone and seems to not take a lot of effort (read = time), this last being important since I am admittedly lazy and would prefer to spend my day doing more than 2 hours of working out.

Cheers....

[Looon]

When it comes to any selection, the physical part don't mean shit. You could literally be Superman and fail any selection simply based on your mental state. ie quitters.

But Im just some old fat dude sitting behind a computer screen.

It sounds like you are hear trying to sell something or trolling for something.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Brother, I'll take you at your word that your post fits your particular experience. I'm sure that someone will be along shortly that can vet that you are what you say you are but I'll take your statements at face value until that occurs. I'll agree with SOTB that some of your points come across as being authoritative and aimed towards selling something even if they aren't..

I'll simply point out where your post and/or your experience doesn't match mine in the order that I found them in your post.

eat good. Eat enough protein to build muscle, enough carbs to fuel your workouts and life, and enough fat to recover.

I lived off the chili dogs, fries, and green bug juice at the old Special Warfare Training Battalion (SWTB) chow hall....sometimes went to the COSCOM chow hall for the fatty crap up there. In short I ate the crap that most 21 year old do...never paid attention to vitamins or nutrition until just a few years ago. I also had a fair amount of beer at various and sundry places of no repute around Ft Bragg. Oh, and I didn't sleep enough....even when I had the chance.


they are also ALL crawl-walk-run type of progressions.

Crawl-walk-run for domain knowledge? Certainly. For the physical part there was no crawl or walk (with the Body Nazis of C Co. at the SWTB anyway), it was "right face, double time march" right after PT formation starting and then running at a sprinter's pace for miles....it was your responsibility to be stretched and ready at the time of formation. Plus we had the constant mind fuck aspect such as "the finish line is just around the next finger" and you are still going an hour later.

Going into your selection on Day 1 and smoking that initial PT test means- nothing! Absolutely nothing. Smoking that halfway eval? Guess what that means? NOTHING!

From what I remember finishing last or near the bottom consistently wasn't the best path to graduation....even if the rationale might somehow be related to certain types of work on teams later.

The only physical eval that matters is the final.

I recall all sorts of mid-phase physical evals that counted....plus, more importantly, you were building your rep with your peers. We had a tabbed guy that missed his 12 mile road march by 10 seconds the first day and by a minute on the retest about 3 weeks into phase 2. He was gone the next day...even though he was already tabbed out and on his second SF MOS. We all knew who the slackers were...even among those that graduated. I'd find it hard to believe that this sort of poor reputation wouldn't stick with someone as I can still remember some of their names years later.


I would prefer to see you squat 350 and have a 21:00 three mile than an 18:00 three mile and a 250 squat, every day of the week.

Different strokes for different folks. Again, regardless of what may best fit a certain mission profile later on, I'd rather not be on the cadre's list of names while in training by finishing 2-3 minutes after the rest of the group. Of course, we hardly ever ran only 3 miles as well so multiply that lag time by anywhere from 1:30 to 2 minutes per mile run. Plus, if you are running 7minute miles to start...you might be running 8-9 minutes per mile 6-10 miles later when everyone else is gliding along at a 6:30 mile pace. You'd likely show up just in time for lunch on some on those long run days that His Airness SSG Jordon would take us on.

I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that I will have to lift something repeatedly, carry something, and put out at 100% in short spurts for an unknown amount of time. Oh, and that "something" I mentioned? It's always heavy. And you always have to move it above your shoulders. Trust me on this one.

I'll trust you on that one...but..."the above your shoulders" part doesn't match my experience in the course or my experience downrange post-Q. I would rewrite this phrase as follows:

lift something continually, carry something, and put out at 90%-100% in long spurts for an unknown amount of time. Oh, and that "something" I mentioned? It's always heavy.

One of the best training experiences was when we had to put odd shaped really heavy things onto a metal frame instead of using our normal "speed rucks" which matched the weight requirement but was distributed in an optimized way (for me that was heavy stuff on top). My experience may be atypical but this most closely matched much of what was required of me later downrange. That, becoming accustomed to sleeping in a heavy poncho and 2 poncho liners regardless of weather (even snow) to save weight, and eating my MRE matches to replace bug spray. I found the latter better for winning hearts and minds that the "eating whole garlic cloves" that my Phase 1 hooch mate Ranger W. Williams from 1st Batt used. :biggrin:

Making a known and measured attempt to increase your body mass as a whole.

Most of the host nation dudes that I worked with in LATAM that often were out doing the deed while I was in didn't meet this standard. They were either short and thin or tall(er) and thin. In many cases they were too dumb or too frightened of what would happen to them if they didn't always put out at 100%. The best trainup for those deployments was extended stairmaster sessions at 100% effort because all of these host nation dudes in mountainous areas of LATAM tended to be friggin' mountain goats in human form.....fast mountain goats at that.

Hope those data points help...

[JLE]

SOTB- Thanks for the input.

I get the impression from reading your post that you seem less interested about discussing what is a better GPP for SOF than telling readers what is a better GPP for SOF. I get this from the style of your post, the length of it, and your insinuation that you are the go-to guy for the answers on the topic. I do have a question for you, you state that you ALWAYS get questions, and you reference this board -- yet you've only been a member here for less than a year. Did you have a different username? Because if not, then once again, I believe you have other motives for your post. IE, do you have a business goal? Is this a publicity venture (your post)?

I have no ulterior motive other than discussion and information. If I was to post a summation? I don't think any GPP has the market cornered on the end-all, be all program for SOF. If you inferred that I was the "go to" guy for this information, then my message style needs tweaking, seeing as HDLS echoed your feeling as to the authoritative style of the post, and I will own that one. As I stated, I have an interest in this specific topic. When I said, "I always get this question", I meant "In the time I have spent as a Pararescueman, the question of 'which workout program do you think is best for me to get through selection and to be a good operator afterwards?' comes up nearly as often as 'What is being a PJ like day-to-day?'. These two questions are almost inexorably paired and I would say 90% of all interested SOF hopefuls ask me those two questions. I don't have another username. If I was "only a member here for a year", but every single question ever posed to me was this specific topic, would that not qualify for "always"? Your belief of an "ulterior motive for this post" is simply not correct. I don't own a gym, or a website, or have a controlling interest in any sort of anything that I could possibly profit from this post. I don't care about publicity, as I don't have a use for it.

Originally Posted by JLE
Going into your selection on Day 1 and smoking that initial PT test means- nothing!
Correct. Spot on. The rest of the follow on to this post is not correct, though. At least not IMO. Why? Because one of the beauties of selection events is that soon enough -- EVERYONE will be smoked. And then, only THEN, does selection actually begin. I've found, from participating in and running selection events, that judging physical strength was rarely the goal of the event, nor was it remotely associated with why the person passed (or failed).

I didn't address the mental aspect of selection specifically for this reason. Would you agree that underweight and untrained individuals, mental toughness aside, have a rougher time at selection than those physically superior in strength and conditioning? How about as an operator on a team? Eventually, everyone is smoked, correct. But if you're hurting from week 1 of a 15 week selection course, doesn't that put you at a disadvantage? If you're smoked during the initial movement of a mission, aren't you performing less than someone that makes it to actions on? While judging physical strength was not the goal of the event, you're telling me that strength was not remotely associated to the pass/fail rate of a given group of students?

]Originally Posted by JLE
Here is my opinion on fitness for the SOF environment. Get stronger.[/I]
No serious argument against this, but GPP isn't focused on just being strong on lifting. It is being strong in your lungs. And being strong in your heart. And to a certain extent, being strong in the mind -- not as easy to train the mind with protein shakes, but still an important task.

That's the point- GPP isn't focused on anything. It's focused on nothing. You're never going to be as strong as you can be, and you're never going to be as cardiovascularly fit as you can be. You're working against yourself every single workout. Not to say that those programs don't make you mildly good at lots of things - handstand pushups, double unders, handstands, rapid lightweight sumodeadlift high pulls. As far as mental toughness is concerned, Fran and Linda induce stress. But I can garner a comparable heartrate from an athlete with 185%xBW squat, 5 sets for 5 reps on a 3:00 cycle. If you have never done this sort of thing, I encourage it and tell me how mentally tough you feel during set 3. How about take your 10 rep max today, and do that for 20 reps. Or 50 reps, 225#. This simply lends itself to a point- mental toughness can be gained in any activity, provided the right amount of psychological factors are applied. To say that "you train your heart and mind" with a GPP is conjecture at best. If you said "I gain mental toughness from my GPP.", then you're dead on if thats how you feel. I don't know how to respond to your protein shake mind training comment, seeing as it appears as sarcasm and unrelated. I don't recall saying anything about nutrition or protein shakes.

I will state there there are some flaws (IMO) with your focus. You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of someone who rides a HUMVEE or chopper, and not someone who walks long distances to get to the problem (or has to walk long distance to leave the problem). WHich is fine. Why not train for your mission? Cool.

You could train for this specific modality, being moderate (50-70% max) activity for long periods by simply walking for long periods in your kit. All GPP's that I am aware of preach "intensity before duration" and search for the physiologic adaptations gained by intense, short bursts of activity. In coach Glassman's words, the "as you can." As many reps as you can, as fast as you can, as much as you can.

So when you are packing on all of those badass inches on your chest and arms -- are you considering that in addition to the ruck you have to haul around, you have to haul around all that muscle? But of course you are, I apologize for the silliness of my question

I would prefer muscle in the thigh, hip, and abdomen, midline stability, and power driven from the hip as opposed to "badass inches on your chest and arms." I didn't say or even imply that anywhere. I supposed that "adding useful body mass would do you more good in the SOF environment than would pursuing intense cardiorespiratory adaptation." I can only take your next statement - are you considering that in addition to the ruck you have to haul around, you have to haul around all that muscle? But of course you are, I apologize for the silliness of my question - as passive aggressive rhetoric. This added nothing to the discussion.

You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of someone who rides a HUMVEE or chopper, and not someone who walks long distances to get to the problem (or has to walk long distance to leave the problem). WHich is fine. Why not train for your mission? Cool.

You do mention that you see at least some of the issues with regards to what equipment or work you can do while deployed. OK, cool. Please give me your thoughts on the rollercoastering of building and dropping musclemass while working missions. You know, the SOF missions where you are walking to a far away location, hanging out there for a week or more, and then walking your ass back out. Only to grab a couple of days' rest to head back out for long walk redeux.


I think you just answered your own question- to train for your mission. If your mission isn't 300m sprints, but to walk long distances at less than maximal output, with gear on, then wouldn't it make sense to train for that? Why on earth would you do 30 GTOH for time? You have no need for that adaption. It seems that in your environment, a linear progression strength based workout program coupled with long distance load carrying at a submaximal output would do you the best good. You're not training for the unknown/unknowable. You know your mission set and expectations.

As this relates to muslcemass or bodyweight- let's use your example of a "long walk to the problem", say 20 miles for arguments sake. For fairness, make this example in a vacuum, where you can compare the same operator and adjust his BW/BF% like a video game. Their load is 100lbs, kit and ruck together. The pace will be 14:00 miles over moderate terrain. Operator 1 is 5'10", 5% bodyfat, at a weight of 175lbs. Operator 2 has 15% body fat and weighs 190lbs. Everything else is identical- training, VO2 max, strength to weight ratio, handgrip strength (the most prevalent indicator in clinical trials for musculoskelatal strength), everything. Who has the least impact at the end of said mission, physiologically? I would argue Operator 2- because as the energy pathways needed to support said function kick over to the fat burning part of the chain after about 60 minutes of 60-70% sustained output, operator 1 has less bodyfat to supply his body with energy, and the next tissue broken down is- muscle. Less of that too. Further more, since Operator 2 is used to carrying all that "badass muscle" around (the only thing different than Operator 1), the addition of nearly half his bodyweight in kit is nowhere near the stress of Operator 1, adding more than half of his bodyweight. Thanks to the higher bodyfat in O2, he is also able to recover faster and with less chance of injury than O1, getting ready for the next mission. The only edge I give O1 in this scenario is lesser caloric need, allowing him to eat less. And, of course, his undoubtedly "sick abzzz".

Originally Posted by JLE
I have enough personal experience to say this with confidence- the best way to get through selection and be a useful operator on the other side is to make a conscious effort to increase your muscle mass and strength exponentially, in all aspects. Regardless of the program.
Well, we disagree. I've exactly the opposite experience. And this is from a guy who still runs selection programs today. And who still sees big guys drop out at almost the beginning of the event.

I will say this. If I could be a big-assed dude AND move to the tune that the little guys seem to constantly be able to do -- I would gladly take your approach. But my experience just doesn't show you to be right.

Your experience- past and present- is valid here. Are you saying that you see highly trained "big dudes" fail earlier and more often than highly trained "little dudes"? It seems as if you are saying that there is a size preference in your selection course. Is that true? And why cant you be a "big assed fast dude"? And doesn't your GPP make you faster? Isn't speed one of the tenets of fitness in CF?

A well-rounded program, that focuses on your being able to be strong -- while allowing you to go long distances. Plus a program that doesn't hurt you before you even get to selection (as you stated, do it SAFELY). Getting stronger is only PART of the equation -- and IMO -- not nearly the most important.

Where on the scale would you rate strength as it relates to "importantness"? How would you arrange your goals?

I don't proclaim to know the best program -- I wish I did. I do like CF'ish programs for maintenance -- if for no other reason than it seems to be less injury-prone and seems to not take a lot of effort (read = time), this last being important since I am admittedly lazy and would prefer to spend my day doing more than 2 hours of working out.


Personal goals will outweigh all else, 100% of the time where this topic is concerned. If you don't wanna spend time getting stronger, you won't, and it won't be a priority. Also, if you're convicted in that opinion, you'll try to convince others.

HDLS- thanks for the inputs. I think I covered most stuff above, but here are some other topics.

Crawl-walk-run for domain knowledge? Certainly. For the physical part there was no crawl or walk (with the Body Nazis of C Co. at the SWTB anyway), it was "right face, double time march" right after PT formation starting and then running at a sprinter's pace for miles....it was your responsibility to be stretched and ready at the time of formation. Plus we had the constant mind fuck aspect such as "the finish line is just around the next finger" and you are still going an hour later.

That's where a LOT of this stuff gets perpetuated. People train others as they were taught to train. Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't mean it's right.

From what I remember finishing last or near the bottom consistently wasn't the best path to graduation....even if the rationale might somehow be related to certain types of work on teams later.

Well sure, no one likes a dirtbag. I never said you should sandbag or scurve. But smoking day one still means nothing.

Most of the host nation dudes that I worked with in LATAM that often were out doing the deed while I was in didn't meet this standard. They were either short and thin or tall(er) and thin. In many cases they were too dumb or too frightened of what would happen to them if they didn't always put out at 100%. The best trainup for those deployments was extended stairmaster sessions at 100% effort because all of these host nation dudes in mountainous areas of LATAM tended to be friggin' mountain goats in human form.....fast mountain goats at that

I don't doubt anything there. But those guys you were talking about had how many generations of evolution, diet, and adaptations in their corner. How did they do when they had to pick your team members up and drag them?

I appreciate the discussion. It's not my intent to come across as the know it all I apparently did, but I own that one and I will adjust.

[JLE]

Sorry- here are some supporting documents if you care to read.

http://startingstrength.com/articles/combat_worst_case_whittemore.pdf

http://startingstrength.com/articles/army_weak_long.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453303/

http://startingstrength.com/articles/appropriate_conditioning_sheaffer.pdf

[SOTB]

I can't hang around much this morning, but I would make two comments;SOTB- Thanks for the input.You've clarified a number of my questions/doubts, especially the one concerning your motives. Thanks. As such, I'm glad to offer input.I don't know how to respond to your protein shake mind training comment, seeing as it appears as sarcasm and unrelated....I can only take your next statement....as passive aggressive rhetoric. This added nothing to the discussion.The first comment had ZERO sarcasm associated with it. The second comment was fairly-laced with it. I would hope that I'm not coming off as passive-aggressive -- that would be the opposite of my posts' goals....

[JLE]

I can't hang around much this morning, but I would make two comments;You've clarified a number of my questions/doubts, especially the one concerning your motives. Thanks. As such, I'm glad to offer input.The first comment had ZERO sarcasm associated with it. The second comment was fairly-laced with it. I would hope that I'm not coming off as passive-aggressive -- that would be the opposite of my posts' goals....

No worries here. Thanks again.

[James2542]

Sorry- here are some supporting documents if you care to read.

http://startingstrength.com/articles/combat_worst_case_whittemore.pdf

http://startingstrength.com/articles/army_weak_long.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453303/

http://startingstrength.com/articles/appropriate_conditioning_sheaffer.pdf

Lol almost all of those quotes come from ss.com. Don't you think that would make them biased to a point where they become unusable as support for a debate such as this one?

Disclaimer: No BTDT or Coaching experience. Just a Ranger hopeful that noticed something amiss :P

[JLE]

Lol almost all of those quotes come from ss.com. Don't you think that would make them biased to a point where they become unusable as support for a debate such as this one?

Disclaimer: No BTDT or Coaching experience. Just a Ranger hopeful that noticed something amiss :P

I can see where you might think that 3 articles from the single source could be biased. I could pull some more articles from the NIH (National Institute of Health), or the Borden institute site (http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/), specifically "Load Carriage in Military Operations, but the Starting Strength articles are specific to the topic, peer reviewed and published in other places also. To boot, they support my position the best in the least amount of geek speak, from a source (military) most likely to be read and accepted by other military types.

I would actually argue that these articles are perfect for a debate such as this one! They completely support my point and provide reference and anecdotal evidence to support my claims. Just because they happened to be arranged on SS letterhead shouldn't refute the message contained within.

My challenge, to anyone, would be to produce any information in opposition to the SS and NIH stuff posted above, stating that cardiovascular fitness above all else should be the SOF modality of choice. Even if it was from a single source.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

But smoking day one still means nothing.

At least one SOF selection program apparently thinks that how you do on Day 1 does mean something. Note that it refers to the initial PST.

15621

(taken fromhttp://www.sealfit.com/uploads/sealfit/file/presof1.pdf)

I'm not a SEAL and I was unable to find the source data for the study here in the 10 minutes that I looked before work... but the above also seems to fit the training guidance on the official Navy SEAL website with respect to getting ready for BUD/S. Perhaps a SEAL here has more complete info or perspective.

Anecdotally, it also seems to fit with what others have said in this thread about their experiences.

That's where a LOT of this stuff gets perpetuated. People train others as they were taught to train. Just because "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't mean it's right.

Understand...but, right or wrong, one still will be selected/not selected on the established criteria.

Lots of candidates for every SOF selection read these threads. My concern would be pointing them in a direction resulting in a lower probability of success just because of a personal difference of opinion with a given approach.

ETA: I'd suggest that get yourself vetted with the AFSOC mod or with any of the Admins so that we know that you are who you say that you are.

[JLE]

HDLS-

While that data is valid (ref:PST run/swim times), the run correlation leaves out key pieces of data that pertain directly to this discussion? Ill bet those athletes, across the board, also had higher (more likely than not much higher) pushups, pullups, sit-ups and flutter kicks. I would also be willing to suppose that the strength to weight ratio was higher in the trained (e.g. faster) individuals than in the untrained (slower) individuals.

From the SEALFIT Website: (http://www.sealfit.com/page/index.php?menu=faq&page=faq-intro)

SEAL FIT WOD programming goes beyond traditional CrossFit programming by integrating:
Warrior Spirit development utilizing classic eastern tools such as breath control, meditation and yoga
Strength development
Stamina development
Running programincluding beach running (for Camp and Academy participants)
Mental toughness training -a focus of the SEALFIT Academy and SEALFIT Camps.
Durability - core development, joint strength, and extremity care, along with proper rest and re-fueling are all introduced in the WODs, and trained in depth at the Academy.
Teamwork and Leadership development - our WODs are best done as a Team, and good teamwork and leadership development are a focus at the Academy and SEALFIT camps.
By their own admission, they also put a higher emphasis on strength than they do on stamina.

And again, from the same FAQ page on SEALFIT, in plain language:

In plain english from Coach Dan:
Running is great but a high amount of running such as what a marathon runner does can and will cause upper body muscle depletioin. Keep in mind the more you run the more muscle mass you lose. First to go is the arms and the chest (hint the push-ups). Yes you need to be able to long distance runs as well as short distance runs. But you don't need to do them 4-times a week. If you insist on running 4 or more times per week then make sure you are chaning your shoes every 100-miles.

Our program has all the running you will need already included. We do less running then you think you need for several reasons. Distance running is an anaerobic exercise where you are only working at 40%. In Special Operations selection you will need to condition your body to work at around 60% under a load. So right off the bat you aren't working at the capacity you need to be if your workouts are based on running.

Our workouts are designed to get your running in order, keep your strength up and then push you into long periods of anaerobic phases. During the workouts you want to push yourself as hard as possible and rest as little as possible, no longer than 10 seconds at a time. If you are doing this then you will find that the running is the easy part of your day and its simply a verification of your running capacity.

CrossFit and SealFit were invented to reduce injuries and create stronger, faster, and more hardcore athletes.

And again, correlation of the run/swim times are a single dynamic which can be a correlation, but to call that single measure of fitness the causal factor as to the success rates of BUDs is incorrect. You're extrapolating an explanation without examining all the pieces of data.

Just to be clear, here is what I originally posted about the inclusion of conditioning along with the primary focus on gaining strength. -- I will say this though- I would prefer to see you squat 350 and have a 21:00 three mile than an 18:00 three mile and a 250 squat, every day of the week...Couple this program with running or swimming as necessary, simply for the fact that running is the test, and omitting running would simply be stupid. The same can be said for cals- if you know you get tested on pushup max, then do pushup max sets. I even went as far as to label one that DIDNT run and swim as part of this program "stupid".

I don't consider wanting a 7:00 minute mile run time, at the slowest, or the inclusion of running/swimming into your program specifically as recommending a program "resulting in a lower probability of success..." I do , however, wish to persuade people to become stronger as their primary focus.

And as for the vetting- I have already talked to the AFSOC mods through PM. Ill PM again to make sure that my status is not in question.

[johca]

HDLS-

And as for the vetting- I have already talked to the AFSOC mods through PM. Ill PM again to make sure that my status is not in question.JLE PMed me his particulars back on 12 April. His info checked out as being a current active duty PJ and I info PMed KJ and Sharky of this verification.

Regarding strong passing PAST scores correlating top overall pass rates. It is correct and true strong PAST scores reflect stronger potential to make it through the training, but unfortunately it only affects and when a high level of PAST scores or fitness is possessed such level of physical fitness becomes a less dominant pass/fail effect. Early attrition from Pararescue training cannot be predicted by PAST scores as passing PAST has been required to proceed from recruiter and MEPS to Basic Training (boot camp) since the 1990s, and passing the PAST during Basic Training prior to reporting to day one of Pararescue training has been required for at least ten years. The Air Force has recently implemented what it calls a Battle Course during BMT for those recruits entering jobs such as PJ and CCT immediately after completing BMT. The short answer is level of PAST fitness has no unique direct determining predictor on who will be an attrition.

I can only speak of Air Force PAST standards and among all Air Force specialties Pararescue has had an implemented PAST standard since 1947. The next Air Force specialty to implement a PAST standard is CCT, and they appropriated both the PJ PAST and PJ Indoc/selection course in 1987 with the first CCT applicant going through a required indoc selection course with the first combined PJ/CCT class 88-02 which graduated December 18, 1987.

It was not level of PAST fitness causing the difference in the attrition rates between PJ and CCT students and the political solution was it was water confidence and SCUBA being the problem and the college boys (no parachute, combat diver or combat leader experienced commissioned officers) of AETC and HQ AF said well CCT doesn’t need SCUBA/COMBAT swimmer capability because the only airfields in the middle of the ocean are aircraft carriers. Thus CCT removed combat swimmer as a required 3-level AFSC award requirement and moved it as being a 5-level and mission ready requirement. Same with military free fall.

What is being discussed is occupational fitness, vocational fitness, and perhaps may have a few other labels these days by fitness gurus trying to make a dollar selling books and building fitness facility usage memberships. Occupation and functional fitness has cognitive and emotional elements. This is why the same college boys (no parachute, combat diver or combat leader experienced commissioned officers) believe an Emotional Quotient Intelligence paper and pencil test can and will be a reliable attrition predictor. SEALs’ call it the C-SORT (Computerized-Special Operations Resiliency Test).

Functional Fitness as it pertains to obtaining and sustaining Pararescue qualification (http://www.alaska.net/~jcassidy/pdf_files/Functional%20Fitness.pdf)

[Silverbullet]

CrossFit and SealFit were invented to reduce injuries and create stronger, faster, and more hardcore athletes.

I don't know anything about SealFit, however other than the name, CF wasn't invented and it has not been proven to prevent injuries or make anyone "stronger" in the sense that word is used in the quote. The hardcore part is just dumb.

I'm all for anyone who wants to do CF as their chosen method, but it isn't novel or new.

I do stuff at the local park I was doing 30 years ago when the founder of CF wasn't doing jack, and kids ask me which CF place I go to or got certified at. CF is a marketing creation. I don't have a problem with that as long as I don't have to read over the top claims like the above.

[Silverbullet]

I can see where you might think that 3 articles from the single source could be biased. I could pull some more articles from the NIH (National Institute of Health), or the Borden institute site (http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/), specifically "Load Carriage in Military Operations, but the Starting Strength articles are specific to the topic, peer reviewed and published in other places also. To boot, they support my position the best in the least amount of geek speak, from a source (military) most likely to be read and accepted by other military types.
.

Can you point me to the references that show where they were peer reviewed and by whom?

Thanks

[poison]

I don't know anything about SealFit, however other than the name, CF wasn't invented and it has not been proven to prevent injuries or make anyone "stronger" in the sense that word is used in the quote. The hardcore part is just dumb.

I'm all for anyone who wants to do CF as their chosen method, but it isn't novel or new.

I do stuff at the local park I was doing 30 years ago when the founder of CF wasn't doing jack, and kids ask me which CF place I go to or got certified at. CF is a marketing creation. I don't have a problem with that as long as I don't have to read over the top claims like the above.

I think you'd enjoy Gym Jones. The rhetoric is awesome to behold.

www.gymjones.com
:eek:

[Silverbullet]

I've known about them for about 5 years.

They and CF had a slap fight, broke up and certain parties choose sides like it was the most important debate in the worlds history.

Thanks

[JLE]

SB-

I will get on the peer reviewed question. The "CF" brand name is what it is- circuit training is in no way new. The quote CrossFit and SealFit were invented to reduce injuries and create stronger, faster, and more hardcore athletes. was copied/pasted directly from the SEALFit website. Unfortunately I cant claim that for my own.

Poison-

Mark Twight (Gym Jones founder) and Greg Glassman were business associates a long time ago. They had a pretty public feud. I couldn't find a reputable source to post here, but a quick google search will explain it. Either way, they're both marketing an old thing in a new box. And doing pretty well. But yea, the GJ stuff is way more elitist, if you can imagine that.

[poison]

slap fight...broke up...the most important debate in the worlds history.

Haha, pretty much.

more elitist, if you can imagine that.

.....I can't. I get the feeling he was touching himself the whole time he was writing it. That may make some people feel special, it just makes me feel dirty.
:tongue:

[Silverbullet]

My thoughts on the type of PT vary.

The SS articles miss the point, IMO and the authors appear to have written to their own preconceived conclusions. There's nothing wrong with that as long as everyone comes into the discussion knowing that.

I very much disagree with the notion put forward about bigger guys being able to absorb more. I'm sure most of us have seen slight dudes take a huge beating or wounds and continue to drive on, whether it was from bullets or explosions.

Bigger dudes are harder to carry regardless of the strength levels of the other plt members as well.

I feel it would be a waste to focus on end strength. Some strength is required and it's a general strength that can be trained in a variety of ways. I would select wt's as the least feasible method. I'm a big believer in wt training, but I see no efficient method of doing it for units. Sandbags and buddy carries are a very good method of building the attributes of strength that are required by most combat units. Pushing humvees work well also.

I see people look down on body wt stuff like push ups, chin ups and sit ups, but feel that many miss the point that a combat MOS type will have his body beat from the daily grind. These exercises help keep him fit, and help the muscles be balanced and recover. Health needs to be an important component of fitness as well. Moving long distances with a ruck is hard. I think some who claim to be experts don't understand the demands that the back, legs, hips and even the shoulders take from this. The last infantry unit I was in we were in the field week in week out. We humped out and then went right into tactical land nav courses, patrolling, movement to contact or MOUT. We ate a meal of MRE's and went right into it. We were active with at a minimum our vest, helmets, weapons and LBE all week while sleeping on the ground when we had the time.

When I had my plt in the rear we PT'ed in a variety of ways but some days it was just a long run, some sprints and then pyramids of the above listed exercises. Many guys lifted on their own but how would I program a strength session that would benefit the plt better than the exertion they did in the field prior to this?

In Recon units, many more guys lifted, but at the end of the day there was no way we could plan a strength session using wts. I didn't do much plt PT since I had the TL's running their own thing, but I did incorporate many sprints, Pull ups, push ups and dips with our vests on. I had to keep in mind that the ability to patrol, swim into a beach from some distance off shore and other activities were the focus of effort. When we were in our CQB MSPF workup we did maintenance fitness. The plt was up and down stairs, climbing up buildings, moving cross country and climbing caving ladders on a regular basis. There was no way or time to interject a wt program. On deployment everyone would get their swoll on and recover from the train up.

So I guess I'm saying leaders need to be smart about how they do it and there is no cookie cutter program, only methods, in my opinion.

[SOTB]

....or any other SOF on here, would be appreciated.I don't think the idea of not running is being made here, I think the issue in the thread -- the issue I have -- is that so-called strength gains are prioritized over cardio-vascular conditioning. Personally, I think to prioritize either of these when we are discussing someone going into a selection pipeline, is not a wise move. I guarantee you that ox-strong MF'ers are going to be dropping just as quickly, and right alongside the gazelle fuckers who can't do a pullup.

If you are going into a selection scenario, you need to be working your body as hard as you can, but not trying to focus upon only one area of conditioning, and IMO, not even making one more important. Yeah, you need to be strong, but you also need to have endurance -- and this is just on the so-called strength part. Add into this the need to be able to ruck/run/swim -- hard and fast and long -- and you see that the key here is to not fall into the trap of some PT argument that isn't much different than the diet arguments.

GPP is exactly that -- GENERAL. To put more emphasis on one aspect of conditioning, LOL when you see that more-rounded person cruising past you and you getting to run the scenario again while he rests....

[JLE]

Silver/SOTB/et al-

I may disagree with some things, but your points are received. Thanks for the discussion. As with most things, the answer is most likely in the middle of this somewhere.

Again, thanks to all participating.